billvon 3,132 #26 October 6, 2006 >and an immediate witch hunt goes on. Very true. Keep in mind, though, that said witch hunt is primarily people asking: >what's the truth here...??? What are the facts? What are the >indisputable issues we're dealing with? . . . What the fuck, over? Multiply that by a few million, and you have the wave of ruckus we're seeing now. So while it's sad that it's happening, I wouldn't be too fast to condemn the people causing it - because we have seen them, and they are us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #27 October 6, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteAnd what is the age of consent in DC? Here it's 16....not 18. I know this is Arkansas and all, but it does make a difference.... linz It seems that is depends on your party affiliation.... No, it obviously doesn't. If you had to pin me down to one or the other, I'd say I'm a Democrat. But the age of consent is whatever the law says it is in a particular place. With a quick google search, it looks like it's 16 in DC. So criminal activity would not have been committed unless the children were under 16. Just seeking some clarity on that issue is all. linz I think you misunderstood my point. I agree with your legal points but, this is politics. The law doen't matter. Especially 4 weeks before an election And this can be pointed at both parties. One is just more nutty right now than the other."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #28 October 6, 2006 QuoteQuoteThere was plenty of it, mostly from fathers like myself - with daughters - who recognized that he was using his position to exploit someone just barely off the jailbait list. Why didn't we go more public with it? Because from Day One the Gingrich crowd was out to destroy him personally over ideology, and we weren't going to give them the aid and comfort. How's that for candor? That's some GOOD candor. you betcha wonder if there's any parallels in today's world.... You betcha. They're politicians ...all of them. A big difference is the current social climate. Relative to the 70's and 80's we, as a society, tolerate less deviation from the accepted norms. So, less tolerance of deviation from the norms and norms that are much more conservative. In this instance, it's pretty much a case of Republicans reeping what they sowed.----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #29 October 6, 2006 QuoteQuoteJust seeking some clarity on that issue is all. Not sure any will be forthcoming, you know? Apparently, there was no crime, the victim of the crime wasn't underage or wasn't under the age of consent, and there's an election in a few weeks. Not sure, Linz, that any clarity will be forthcoming.... What bothers me (and it would bother me if it were either party), is when stuff like this comes out, and an immediate witch hunt goes on. This person, that person, the other person tries to make political hay, and often the truth gets lost in the whole fiasco. So what's the truth here...??? What are the facts? What are the indisputable issues we're dealing with? $90K found in someone's lasagna pan? A man having a long term relationship with a hooker and their pad is a madame's den? A man sending IMs and emails to someone who is over 18? What the fuck, over? Let's look at the degree of crime, here... Ciels- Michele Right - how about looking at the 23 American boys killed in Iraq in the last 5 days.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #30 October 6, 2006 Quote>and an immediate witch hunt goes on. Very true. Keep in mind, though, that said witch hunt is primarily people asking: >what's the truth here...??? What are the facts? What are the >indisputable issues we're dealing with? . . . What the fuck, over? Multiply that by a few million, and you have the wave of ruckus we're seeing now. So while it's sad that it's happening, I wouldn't be too fast to condemn the people causing it - because we have seen them, and they are us. Other people were asking what you say, but you were confident in what facts were clear, basically, you said he knew and did nothing about it, quite intentionally misleading, I think.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #31 October 6, 2006 QuoteQuote>Hence I used the plural IMs. Would have been appropriate to use the plural "guys" as well. It wasn't just the one incident. It's entertaining to watch the hypocrisy of the left as they go after a gay guy for sending a explicit messages to a consenting adult in response to explicit messages sent to him. If you keep it sufficiently vague you'll be able to maximize the damage to the republican "fag". So what's your point? Sexual relations are acceptable between consenting adults? Gee, I thought that was an impeachable offense and worthy of millions of dollars worth of taxpayer money and the shutting down of our federal government. You mean it's not? Put the hypocrisy where it belongs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #32 October 6, 2006 QuoteThis is priceless, now it turns out the guy is 21 and was over 18 when Foley sent the saucy IMs. All this verbage and 'expert opinion' over this bullshit? You gotta love the political system and media in this country...... Especially considering the age of consent in Washington DC is 16, not 18. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craddock 0 #33 October 6, 2006 What exactly are you talking about? That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #34 October 6, 2006 QuoteEspecially considering the age of consent in Washington DC is 16, not 18. I dont know about you.. but if this 50 something assbite was coming on to MY 16 year old son.. I WOULD have a friggin MAJOR problem with it. And I dont care WHAT friggin political partyhe belonged to or anything else about him.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #35 October 6, 2006 not telling the truth under oath is an impeachable offence"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #36 October 6, 2006 Quotenot telling the truth under oath is an impeachable offence AND then this administration has made SURE they never get placed under oath.... just to make sure that when THEY lie.. and thousands die... nothing will come of it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #37 October 6, 2006 highjack"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #38 October 6, 2006 QuoteQuoteEspecially considering the age of consent in Washington DC is 16, not 18. I dont know about you.. but if this 50 something assbite was coming on to MY 16 year old son.. I WOULD have a friggin MAJOR problem with it. And I dont care WHAT friggin political partyhe belonged to or anything else about him.... Quite right. Of course nearly all people would also have a problem with it even when their kid was 18, we just wouldn't have a legal recourse. I suppose age of consent laws are reasonable to prevent an 18 year old senior from being arrested for having sex with a 17 year old. Perhaps it should be considered to change the age of consent laws so that once you're over a certain age, the age of consent for your partners moves up to 18.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #39 October 6, 2006 >you said he knew and did nothing about it, quite intentionally misleading, >I think. He definitely did know that Foley was sending inappropriate emails to underage pages and did little about it (other than warning Foley.) That was a mistake. He admitted this, so if you disagree, you'll have to take it up with him. (BTW I think his accepting responsibility for this is a good thing overall.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #40 October 6, 2006 Quote>you said he knew and did nothing about it, quite intentionally misleading, >I think. He definitely did know that Foley was sending inappropriate emails to underage pages and did little about it (other than warning Foley.) That was a mistake. He admitted this, so if you disagree, you'll have to take it up with him. (BTW I think his accepting responsibility for this is a good thing overall.) The Dem talking points say explicitly to ignore the difference between the different types/sets of messages - treat them as all the same thing, and say that Hastert knew it and did nothing. I think that is an awful tactic, one you seemed to follow exactly.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #41 October 6, 2006 >The Dem talking points say explicitly to ignore the difference >between the different types/sets of messages . . . Wow, you're grasping at straws. No one has said "ignore the difference between the sorts of messages." I know "the best defense is a good offense" and all that, but perhaps stopping your all-out attack against the democrats and WAITING FOR THE INVESTIGATION TO COMPLETE would result in fewer foot-in-mouth incidents. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #42 October 6, 2006 Quote>The Dem talking points say explicitly to ignore the difference >between the different types/sets of messages . . . Wow, you're grasping at straws. No one has said "ignore the difference between the sorts of messages." I know "the best defense is a good offense" and all that, but perhaps stopping your all-out attack against the democrats and WAITING FOR THE INVESTIGATION TO COMPLETE would result in fewer foot-in-mouth incidents. It is absolutely amazing that you don't realize you've done exactly what you're complaining about now. Wow, your early posts on this matter seemed so confident. Facts were clear, he knew and did nothing about it and so on like that. Early on I reminded you that Hastert only admitted to knowing of certain messages, not others. You immediately replied that I was correct, yada yada. Then just a short time later, you were back at it again, saying that he knew and did nothing. That type of accusation seems obviously to be wanting to portray the issue in a misleading way to harm Hastert and repubs in general. That is exactly what the dem talking points have said for them to do - paint the concerns over the communications with the page as all being in the same lump.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #43 October 6, 2006 I don't know how anyone could defend this Foley guy. You can cry about how it happened at election time and all that, but for Heaven's sake....it's HE who screwed his own party over (if there are people who really want to "blame the Republicans"). Nobody else. I'm sure there are a lot of "Dems" who, unfortunately, love the way it's happening, but it certainly isn't they who brought it on.-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #44 October 6, 2006 Quote I suppose age of consent laws are reasonable to prevent an 18 year old senior from being arrested for having sex with a 17 year old. Perhaps it should be considered to change the age of consent laws so that once you're over a certain age, the age of consent for your partners moves up to 18. Many states have "Romeo and Juliet" laws which allow for sex between a sixteen year old and anyone no more than three years older. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #45 October 6, 2006 >Wow, your early posts on this matter seemed so confident. Facts >were clear, he knew and did nothing about it and so on like that. And nothing's changed. Hastert ADMITTED knowing about Foley's inappropriate emails, the ones described as "sick sick sick" by the page who received them. He ADMITTED only warning him to 'cut it out.' Those are facts, confirmed by Hastert himself. If you have a problem with that - take it up with him. Did he know that they would lead to much worse IM's later? Were there clues in that direction? Did other people know and cover it up? I don't know, and neither do you. Hopefully the investigation will reveal that. I am content to wait for it. But it seems like you can't wait for the investigation. You need someone to slam right now, and I'm a good target. And you will scream bloody murder about how unfair it all is, and how the republicans are the real victims here, and how I'm supporting the democratic talking points (whatever they are.) So be it - but people like you are why this will remain front page news from now until the election. If that's the way you want it, then keep it up. As of the last PollingPlace estimate (which, of course, is only a guess) control of the house is going to switch to democratic (218 to 216) and the senate is in a dead heat. I'm sure you can help get the senate to change party control as well if you keep this on page 1 for long enough. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #46 October 6, 2006 QuoteI don't know how anyone could defend this Foley guy I don't think anyone has defended Foley. Although I would love to know if the Im's were sent to a person who was 18. That makes a big difference in if it was "illegal" or not. But we will all have to wait to find out. Although like everything else, I am sure the additional info will be page 12, not page one news. QuoteNobody else. I'm sure there are a lot of "Dems" who, unfortunately, love the way it's happening, but it certainly isn't they who brought it on. I think what "sundevil" is compaining about is how some are lumping the Emails, which the FBI did not consider to be "criminal" with the Im's that may well have been (or not depending on the age of the recipient). And how since some are lumping the emails and IM's as one are also claiming that the Republicans knew about it and tried to cover it up. It seems that Hastert did know about the Emails (which the FBI did not see as criminal) but maybe not the IM's (which might have been depending on the age of the person). One thing is that no matter what party does something bad, expect the other party to make a stink about it. Am I the only one that sees a bit of a double standard when it come to sex from the two parties however? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #47 October 6, 2006 QuoteQuote>The Dem talking points say explicitly to ignore the difference >between the different types/sets of messages . . . Wow, you're grasping at straws. No one has said "ignore the difference between the sorts of messages." I know "the best defense is a good offense" and all that, but perhaps stopping your all-out attack against the democrats and WAITING FOR THE INVESTIGATION TO COMPLETE would result in fewer foot-in-mouth incidents. It is absolutely amazing that you don't realize you've done exactly what you're complaining about now. What is amazing is the number of uber rights who have been driven by political ideology (or perhaps, more personal demons) to defend (albiet obliquely) a man who's sexual prey is children!!! At this point, just about any reasonable man would re-examine where they have arrived and who they are. Lesser men will search for, and find, rationalization.----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #48 October 6, 2006 QuoteAnd nothing's changed. Hastert ADMITTED knowing about Foley's inappropriate emails, the ones described as "sick sick sick" by the page who received them. He ADMITTED only warning him to 'cut it out.' Those are facts, confirmed by Hastert himself. If you have a problem with that - take it up with him. Maybe Hastert had some good Catholic schooling on this subject. He certainly seems to have followed the track record that many bishops and cardinals followed when faced with a similar circumstance. Well there was nothing on his Website but this.... EEEEESSSSHHHHHH http://www.house.gov/hastert/bio.shtml Prior to Congress, during the 1980s, Hastert served three terms in the Illinois General Assembly, where he spearheaded legislation on child abuse prevention, property tax reform, educational excellence and economic development. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #49 October 6, 2006 He admitted to knowing about the same emails the Florida newspapers and FBI had. Those emails that those same papers and FBI decidided there was nothing to do but, Hastert did do something. But you don't seem to care about these facts now do you......"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #50 October 6, 2006 Quote>He ADMITTED only warning him to 'cut it out.' Several times he sent him a note saying "Cut it out, Your last warning" ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
